Tag: real property

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

REAL ESTATE RECEIVER NAVIGATES REAL ESTATE INSOLVENCY: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE

A professional-looking individual, possibly wearing a suit, holding a clipboard and standing confidently in front of a distressed property. The property could be depicted with signs of neglect or decay to emphasize its distressed state, such as boarded-up windows, overgrown plants, and peeling paint. The focus should be on the individual, exuding a sense of authority and competence in managing such situations. The setting could be urban or suburban, with a backdrop that hints at the challenges of real estate insolvency. The art style could be detailed and realistic to capture the situation's seriousness and the individual's professional demeanour.
real estate receiver

Real Estate Receiver Introduction to Real Estate Insolvency

Commercial real estate markets are constantly evolving, and with the recent upswing in defaulted real estate loans on commercial properties, lenders and borrowers are facing unprecedented challenges. I have observed the current market conditions from our ongoing real estate receiver files with keen interest. The landscape is evolving, presenting both challenges and opportunities for developers, lenders and real estate investors alike.

In this Brandon’s Blog post, from my perspective as a real estate receiver, I delve into the intricacies of the growing sector of real estate insolvency, offering (hopefully) valuable insights for both owners and lenders. This includes the challenges faced by developers, the growing demand for remedies in distressed properties, and the overall market dynamics. Join me as I explore the remedies available to navigate through these turbulent times.

Real Estate Receiver Overview of the Current Market Conditions

The real estate sector is currently navigating through dynamic market conditions that have been shaped by various factors. The recent upswing in defaulted commercial real estate loans serves as a signal of a continued downward trend in the market cycle. Developers, especially those with ongoing residential condominium projects, find themselves particularly vulnerable to unexpected upheavals.

Challenges Faced by Developers with In-Progress Projects

Developers face challenges during the construction phase. Delays, spiking costs, and inflation in construction expenses have eroded profit margins, leading to financial strains on developers.

  • Developers of residential real estate typically need to presell a significant portion of units to secure financing.
  • Construction cost inflation and pandemic-related disruptions have further complicated project economics.
  • Delays in construction schedules have been a common occurrence.

Developers in the real estate market are struggling with unprecedented challenges, with many facing insolvency issues. Adapting to changing market conditions and mitigating financial risks has become paramount. Legal experts note a growing demand for remedies across all types of distressed properties, highlighting the urgency in finding solutions to support developers and real estate investors.

Developers must navigate these challenges effectively by exploring various options such as mezzanine lending, private lending, and workout agreements. The evolving market dynamics require a proactive approach to address financial distress and ensure the successful completion of projects.

Growing Demand for Remedies in Distressed Properties

The growing demand for remedies in distressed properties underscores the need for collaborative efforts between lenders and borrowers to resolve defaults. Workout agreements and restructuring of loans offer potential solutions to mitigate financial risks and stabilize projects facing insolvency.

“It’s essential to establish trust and cooperation between borrowers and lenders to navigate through financial challenges effectively.”

Partnerships such as the conversion of mezzanine loans into equity demonstrate innovative approaches to address insolvency issues and support project completion. By exploring alternative solutions, stakeholders in the real estate sector can work towards sustainable outcomes and mitigate potential losses.

A professional-looking individual, possibly wearing a suit, holding a clipboard and standing confidently in front of a distressed property. The property could be depicted with signs of neglect or decay to emphasize its distressed state, such as boarded-up windows, overgrown plants, and peeling paint. The focus should be on the individual, exuding a sense of authority and competence in managing such situations. The setting could be urban or suburban, with a backdrop that hints at the challenges of real estate insolvency. The art style could be detailed and realistic to capture the situation's seriousness and the individual's professional demeanour.
real estate receiver

Real Estate Receivership: Challenges in Residential Condominium Economics

In my role as a real estate receiver, I am intrigued by the complexities of residential condominium project economics, particularly in the face of obstacles such as construction delays and escalating costs. These variables can substantially affect the financial viability of such projects, necessitating developers to implement targeted risk mitigation strategies.

Impact of Construction Delays and Cost Inflation

One of the most critical aspects affecting condo projects is the occurrence of construction delays and cost inflation. During the construction phase, when financing is fixed, any delays can lead to financial strain as developers cannot generate income until the project’s completion. Typically, developers aim to presell a significant percentage of units to secure financing. However, the recent spike in construction costs, coupled with delays, has eroded profit margins.

  • Statistics Canada reported substantial inflation in construction costs.
  • Delays in project timelines can lead to increased expenses and reduced profitability.
  • Preselling units becomes challenging when costs cannot be accurately predicted.

Strategies for Developers to Mitigate Financial Risks

Developers facing these challenges must consider various strategies to safeguard their investments and navigate through uncertain economic conditions. Some effective risk mitigation strategies include:

  1. Diversifying funding sources to reduce dependency on a single financing option.
  2. Implementing robust project management techniques to minimize delays and cost overruns.
  3. Engaging in transparent communication with stakeholders to manage expectations effectively.
  4. Conversion of mezzanine loans into equity.

Real Estate Receiver: Power of Sale vs. Foreclosure Process

When it comes to handling defaulting real estate loans, there are various legal mechanisms available to lenders and borrowers to manage real property insolvency situations effectively without the need for a real estate receiver. In this section, I will compare the processes of power of sale and foreclosure, explore key scenarios where each approach may be beneficial, and discuss the legal considerations that both lenders and borrowers need to take into account.

Comparison of Power of Sale and Foreclosure Processes

Both power of sale and foreclosure are methods that lenders can use to recover funds from defaulted borrowers. The key difference between the two lies in the execution and outcome of the process.

  • Power of Sale: This approach allows lenders to sell the property without involving court proceedings. It is authorized under Ontario’s Mortgages Act and is generally faster and less costly compared to foreclosure. Lenders have the right to sell the property to recoup the outstanding debt, with any surplus earnings returned to the borrower and any shortfall being the responsibility of both the borrower and any guarantors of the borrower’s mortgage financing.
  • Foreclosure: In a foreclosure action, lenders take ownership of the property in exchange for the debt owed. This process involves court proceedings, starting with a statement of claim issued by the creditor. Foreclosure can be challenged by the borrower, and in some cases, the court may convert it to a judicial sale, allowing other parties to benefit from any potential surplus proceeds.

Key Scenarios for Each Approach

The choice between the power of sale and foreclosure may depend on the specific circumstances of the defaulting loan and the goals of the lender or borrower.

  • Power of Sale: This method is often preferred when quick action is required to recover funds. It is suitable for situations where the market value of the property is likely to cover the debt, and lenders want a faster resolution.
  • Foreclosure: Foreclosure may be more appropriate when the debt exceeds the property value, or when disputes regarding the validity of a sale are likely. Turning foreclosures into judicial sales provides added oversight and protection for borrowers, allowing for a fair distribution of proceeds.

Legal Considerations for Lenders and Borrowers

Both lenders and borrowers need to navigate various legal requirements and considerations when dealing with the power of sale and foreclosure processes.

  • Lender Responsibilities: Lenders must adhere to statutory and contractual obligations, including providing notification to borrowers and ensuring fair market value in property sales. They have the right to pursue borrowers for any remaining debt after the property sale.
  • Debtor Rights: In cases of insolvency, borrowers have the right to contest the sale and request evidence of its legitimacy. They may insist that lenders provide proof that the sale price accurately reflects the property’s true market value, supported by appraisals and appropriate marketing efforts.

The decision between utilizing the power of sale and pursuing foreclosure should be based on the specific circumstances of the defaulted loan, the characteristics and interests of all involved parties, and the desired outcomes for both lenders and borrowers. A comprehensive understanding of the variances and consequences associated with each approach is essential for effectively navigating insolvency scenarios within the real estate sector.

A professional-looking individual, possibly wearing a suit, holding a clipboard and standing confidently in front of a distressed property. The property could be depicted with signs of neglect or decay to emphasize its distressed state, such as boarded-up windows, overgrown plants, and peeling paint. The focus should be on the individual, exuding a sense of authority and competence in managing such situations. The setting could be urban or suburban, with a backdrop that hints at the challenges of real estate insolvency. The art style could be detailed and realistic to capture the situation's seriousness and the individual's professional demeanour.
real estate receiver

Real Estate Receiver: Workout – The Collaborative Solution

As a real estate receiver, I believe it’s crucial to understand the various mechanisms available to address mortgage defaults and insolvency in addition to a real estate receivership enforcement action in dealing with real estate assets. One such approach that has traction in the right circumstances in dealing with a real estate distressed asset is the concept of workouts as a collaborative solution to resolving defaults. Let’s delve into the key components of a workout plan and forbearance agreements.

Exploring the Concept of Workouts as a Collaborative Approach

When creditors and debtors face insolvency or defaults, engaging in a workout plan can offer a mutually beneficial solution. Unlike traditional enforcement measures like foreclosure or power of sale, workouts emphasize collaboration and finding a middle ground that works for both parties. This approach is based on trust, cooperation, and a shared goal of resolving financial difficulties.

Key Components of a Workout Plan and Forbearance Agreements

A workout plan typically involves amending the original loan agreement or creating a forbearance agreement to outline the terms and conditions for resolving the default. It requires a thorough assessment of the situation, a solid plan to address the financial issues, and a commitment to openness and transparency between the borrower and lender. By setting clear objectives and timelines, both parties can work towards a viable solution that avoids costly legal proceedings.

Real Estate Receiver: A Detailed Overview of a Real Estate Receivership

When comparing receivership with judicial sales and foreclosure processes, it becomes apparent that each approach has its unique advantages and challenges. Receivership, often court-appointed, involves a licensed insolvency trustee acting as the receiver overseeing the property’s recovery and sale to recoup funds owed. While more time-consuming and costly than the power of sale or foreclosure, court-appointed receivership offers a structured way to handle complex real estate insolvencies. Due to the complexity, a real estate receiver requires extensive powers from the court.

Challenges and benefits arise for both lenders and borrowers in the realm of receivership. Lenders may face the risk of insufficient property sale proceeds, prompting the pursuit of borrowers for remaining loan amounts. On the flip side, borrowers have the legal right to challenge the validity of a power sale and must ensure the property’s sale price reflects its market value to protect their interests.

Receivership serves as a court-supervised controlled process that aims to maximize gross sales proceeds and prioritize creditors’ claims transparently and efficiently. By applying to the court to appoint a receiver to handle property recovery and distribution, the complexities of insolvency can be managed effectively, safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders involved.

What is a receivership and how does it function in Canada’s legal framework?

Within the legal landscape of Canada encompassing matters of commercial contention, there is the intricate notion of receivership. This process entails the designation of one of the two types of receivers; either a privately-appointed receiver or a court-appointed receiver. A receiver is vested with the authority to assume dominion over a business’s array of assets and properties. This authority arises from situations of monetary default on their secured loans.

It is prudent to retain awareness that the role of a receiver can only be filled by a licensed trustee for assuming the mantle of a receiver within the confines of Canada’s legal expanse.

The fulcrum upon which the inception of the receivership mechanism pivots is usually the inability of secured creditors to recoup their financial outlay from a debtor, who in turn is incapacitated in discharging its pecuniary obligations.

The receiver becomes vested with the possession and control of the assets, affects their liquidation, and subsequently allocates the ensuing sale proceeds among the cadre of creditors within the hierarchy delineated by the legal ladder of priority of claims. A court-appointed real estate receiver may also need to retain other real estate experts such as property managers, appraisers and real estate agents.

As an instrumental constituent of the commercial legal architecture in Canada, the receivership process endeavours to safeguard the vested interests of both creditors and debtors. It offers creditors the avenue to recoup either the entirety or a portion of their outstanding amounts due.

Concurrently, beleaguered commercial entities are afforded the prospect of either orchestrating a financial reconfiguration that extricates them from the quagmire of their fiscal problems or facilitating the divestiture of assets with the aspiration of facilitating the uninterrupted continuity of the business, but under new ownership. It, therefore, emerges as an indispensable instrument within the gamut of the Canadian legal paradigm, upholding the equilibrium of economic constancy.

Who is an approved buyer in the context of a receivership sale?

In the detailed context of a receivership sale, an approved buyer describes an individual or entity that has effectively met the specific requirements stated by the designated receiver. These standards encompass a variety of variables, including financial disclosure, a shown understanding of the sale’s terms and conditions, and the tried and tested capacity to finalize the purchase quickly. Usually, the recognition of an approved buyer takes place within a defined bidding procedure, in which potential purchasers compete to meet these developed requirements.

Once identified, an approved buyer ends up being subject to the terms and terms laid out within the sale arrangement. It is the receiver’s responsibility to ensure that the sale is carried out with a commitment to fairness and transparency. This consists of the duty to pick an approved buyer who not only can efficiently wrap up the real estate transaction but also can enhance the overall value of the assets that are being sold.

The fiduciary responsibility of the receiver is paramount throughout this process. The receiver is obliged to act in the very best interests of all parties, which encompasses lenders and other stakeholders. For that reason, the receiver’s duty surpasses the simple identification of an approved buyer; it includes securing the integrity of the sale, guaranteeing fairness for all parties, and ultimately maximizing the value that can stem from the assets being sold within the context of the receivership.

The role of secured creditors and their rights in receiverships

In the world of Canadian receiverships, secured creditors play an essential function in identifying the destiny of troubled companies. Recognizing their rights is essential in going through this complex landscape. Secured creditors have the legal authority to take enforcement proceedings against the assets covered by their security and have a higher priority in payment contrasted to unsecured creditors. They can either privately appoint or apply to the court for the appointment of a receiver.

The court-appointed receiver acts as a neutral party in charge of taking care of and selling the assets. The secured lenders have the right to challenge court-approved buyers if they think the receivership sale process is unfair or if they have a better deal. Nonetheless, safeguarding their legal rights within receiverships calls for a detailed understanding of the legal complexities and efficient timing associated with receiverships.

A secured creditor plays a crucial duty in the sale process. As the main financial stakeholder given their claim against the secured assets, the secured creditor has a vested interest in the result of the sale procedure. The court-appointed sale procedure includes the marketing and sale of the debtor’s assets and properties, which inevitably establishes the amount of funds that will be available to pay against the secured debt.

For that reason, the secured lender has a significant interest in guaranteeing that the sale procedure is conducted in a way that optimizes the recuperation of funds. The secured creditor’s beneficial interest in the sale procedure is shown in their capability to approve or reject the sale of assets in a private appointment and carries a level of weight with the court for a court-approved sale. This power allows them to protect their economic interests and ensure the very best feasible result from the sale process.

The timelines and stages of a receivership sale: The role of the approved buyer in Canadian receiverships

In Canadian receiverships, the role of the approved buyer is essential to the successful outcome of a receivership. In a court-appointed receivership, approved buyers are court-approved purchasers who typically offer the highest and most beneficial bid for the debtor company’s assets. They play a crucial role in maximizing the value of the distressed company and ensuring the best outcome for all parties involved. Their timely participation in the receivership process is instrumental in achieving sale finality and ultimately shaping the fate of the distressed entity.

In the world of Canadian receiverships, the involvement of court-approved buyers functions as a cornerstone in supporting an equitable and clear process. This essential process makes certain that every interested party can take part in the bidding process for the assets being sold. The result of this bidding process finishes with the choice of the best overall bidder. This mechanism of operation is rooted in concepts of justness, striving to eliminate any type of unnecessary benefit that a solitary party might have over others.

When a company is placed into receivership, the assigned receiver assumes command over the assets as well as operational elements of the business. The purpose behind the orchestration of a receivership sale revolves around the liquidation of the firm’s holdings to get them out of the insolvent troubled company and into the hands of a buyer who can maximize their value. The timing and stages integral within receiverships have a level of fluidity depending upon the intricacy and complexity of the business’s operations and assets.

Generally, the receiver’s starting point is the meticulous groundwork and strategy in setting up the sale procedure. Typically, the initial stage involves the preparation and marketing of the sale of the assets. This is followed by the negotiation and acceptance of offers from interested parties. In court-appointed receiverships, once an offer is accepted, the sale is subject to court approval and then the transfer of ownership is completed.

As this complex process unravels, the receiver must follow rigid lawful as well as regulatory requirements, thereby promoting an environment of impartiality and transparency that emphasizes a fair sale process. In its totality, the underlying purpose of a receivership sale opens up as the optimization of the company’s asset values, a pursuit carried out in the service of all stakeholders’ well-being.

A professional-looking individual, possibly wearing a suit, holding a clipboard and standing confidently in front of a distressed property. The property could be depicted with signs of neglect or decay to emphasize its distressed state, such as boarded-up windows, overgrown plants, and peeling paint. The focus should be on the individual, exuding a sense of authority and competence in managing such situations. The setting could be urban or suburban, with a backdrop that hints at the challenges of real estate insolvency. The art style could be detailed and realistic to capture the situation's seriousness and the individual's professional demeanour.
real estate receiver

Real Estate Receiver: What the Court Requires To Approve A Real Estate Receivership Sale

Being involved as a bidder in real estate receivership sales can be both exciting and daunting, laden with unique challenges and opportunities. Let’s delve into the intricacies of what the Court requires for the legal process to approve a particular sales process and sale of assets when the company is in receivership.

The Soundair principles

The Soundair principles are a collection of lawful standards developed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 1991 in the case of Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). All Canadian courts follow these principles.

The Soundair principles are aimed at creating fairness and transparency in the sale of assets throughout real estate receivership cases. Thirty-one years later, it is still the leading case in Canadian insolvency asset sales rules and regulations. These concepts guide courts in evaluating whether the sale procedure carried out by a receiver has been fair and suitable.

Here are the Soundair principles in detail:

  • Diligent Efforts to Secure the Best Price: The receiver/trustee is obliged to exert sensible efforts to secure the highest possible price for the assets for the general benefit of creditors. This entails thoroughly advertising the assets for sale, soliciting competing bids, and ensuring that prospective purchasers have sufficient information to submit proper offers to purchase. The goal is to get the highest sales price possible under the circumstances, to maximize the return for the benefit of creditors.
  • Fairness and Integrity in the Sale Process: It is essential to give all interested parties an equivalent opportunity to join the sales process and to avoid any potential purchaser from obtaining an unreasonable edge. Transparency and impartiality are vital, and conflicts of interest cannot be tolerated.
  • All Stakeholders’ Interests: The receiver/trustee must look out for the interests of all parties, secured creditors and unsecured creditors, shareholders, and any other appropriate stakeholders. It is very important for the licensed insolvency trustee to avoid preference for any party and to strive for a fair equilibrium of the interests among everybody affected because the company is insolvent.
  • Input from significant creditors: This is a crucial consideration for the licensed insolvency trustee. While the trustee retains the ultimate decision-making authority, it is essential to carefully weigh and consider the recommendations and preferences of major creditors. Given that these creditors will bear financial implications based on the sale outcomes, their input carries substantial significance in the decision-making process.

Application of the Soundair principles

In practice, when a sale of assets is held because the company is in receivership, there are two stages of court review. First, the licensed insolvency trustee needs to get approval for the actual sales process itself. Then, the Court will review the process as implemented by the licensed insolvency trustee.

The Court’s reviews are to ensure conformity with these Soundair principles. This is the case if this is not a sale at arm’s length purchaser. The court will take into consideration the following elements:

  • Marketing Efforts: How the assets were advertised and marketed, including the period and reach of the advertising and marketing initiatives.
  • Number and Quality of Offers: The variety of offers obtained and whether they reflect reasonable market price. To assist the Court in determining the reasonableness of the offers received, the Trustee must provide evidence to the Court. An independent appraisal of the assets and other market data is the normal kind of evidence usedwhat a fair valuation of the assets is.
  • Transparency: Whether the sale process was conducted fairly and transparently, with appropriate details provided to all possible purchasers.
  • Stakeholder Consultation: Whether the licensed insolvency trustee has spoken with and taken into consideration the views of significant creditors and other stakeholders.
  • Authorization of Sale: Whether the proposed sale is supported by the significant creditors or as a minimum, is not being opposed.

The Soundair principles assist when a company is in receivership, in guaranteeing that the sale of assets in an insolvency context is carried out in a fashion that maximizes value, keeps fairness, and appreciates the interests of all the major stakeholders. By adhering to these concepts, the court aims to supply confidence in the integrity and fairness of the process and protect the rights of all stakeholders.

Real Estate Receiver FAQs on Real Estate Receivership and Insolvency

  1. What is a Real Estate Receiver? Answer: A real estate receiver is a court-appointed licensed insolvency trustee individual or firm responsible for managing, operating, and sometimes selling a property that is in financial distress. The receiver acts as a neutral third party to preserve the value of the property for the benefit of creditors and stakeholders.
  2. What is Real Estate Insolvency? Answer: Real estate insolvency occurs when a property or the owner of a property is unable to meet financial obligations. This often leads to legal proceedings where creditors seek to recover owed amounts, potentially resulting in foreclosure or receivership.
  3. When is a Receiver Appointed in Real Estate Cases? Answer: A receiver is typically appointed when a property is in financial distress, and there is a risk of losing significant value. This can occur during foreclosure proceedings, bankruptcy cases, or other situations where the property’s income and management are compromised.
  4. What Are the Duties of a Real Estate Receiver? Answer: The responsibilities of a real estate receiver encompass overseeing the daily activities of the property, collecting rental payments, maintaining the property, facilitating required repairs, and occasionally coordinating the property’s readiness for potential sale. The primary objective of the receiver is to optimize the property’s value and uphold equitable treatment of all stakeholders.
  5. How Does the Receivership Process Work? Answer: The receivership process commences upon the issuance of a court order appointing a receiver. The receiver assumes control of the property, evaluates its condition, and executes a management strategy. Regular reports are submitted to the court, and the receiver adheres to the court’s instructions until the property is stabilized, sold, or resolved in another manner.
  6. What Are the Benefits of Appointing a Receiver? Answer: Appointing a receiver offers numerous advantages, including the stabilization of distressed properties, prevention of waste and loss, and provision of a neutral party to impartially manage the property. This can prove highly beneficial to creditors, owners, and tenants alike, safeguarding the property’s value and potentially optimizing its worth.
  7. Can Property Owners Regain Control of Their Property After Receivership? Answer: Yes, property owners can regain control of their property if they resolve the financial issues and the court approves the termination of the receivership. This often requires paying off debts, restructuring finances, or meeting other conditions set by the court.
  8. What Happens to Tenants During Receivership? Answer: Tenants generally continue their leases under the receivership. The receiver collects rents and manages the property as usual, ensuring that the property remains operational. Tenants may experience improved management and maintenance under a receiver’s oversight.
  9. How Are Receivers Compensated? Answer: Receivers are compensated from the income generated by the property or from the proceeds of a property sale. Their fees and expenses must be approved by the court and are given priority over both secured and unsecured creditor claims by the court.
  10. What Is the Difference Between Receivership and Foreclosure? Answer: Receivership and foreclosure are distinct legal processes in real estate management. Foreclosure refers to a legal action taken by a lender to recover the outstanding loan balance from a borrower who has defaulted on payments, often leading to the sale of the property. On the other hand, receivership entails the appointment of an impartial third party to oversee and stabilize the property, to potentially prevent foreclosure, maintain the property’s value and ultimately sell it.
  11. Can a Receiver Sell the Property? Answer: Yes, a receiver can sell the property if authorized by the court. The sale process is usually supervised by the court to ensure it is conducted fairly and that the proceeds are distributed according to the court’s directives.
  12. What Challenges Might a Receiver Face? Answer: Challenges include dealing with neglected maintenance, unpaid taxes, existing liens, tenant disputes, and market conditions. The receiver must navigate these issues while adhering to legal requirements and court orders.
  13. How Long Does a Receivership Last? Answer: The duration of a receivership is contingent upon the intricacy of the case, the state of the property, and the objectives of the receivership. The timeline can range from several months to multiple years.
  14. Who Can Request the Appointment of a Receiver? Answer: Interested parties such as creditors, lienholders, property owners, or other relevant entities have the option to seek the appointment of a receiver. The court will evaluate such requests by taking into account the specific circumstances and the necessity of safeguarding the property’s value.

These FAQs provide a comprehensive overview of key concepts related to real estate receivership and insolvency.

Real Estate Receiver Conclusion

I hope you have enjoyed this real estate receiver Brandon’s Blog. Do you or your company have too much debt? Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt.

You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. The way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a plan, we know that we can help you.

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team.

That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious about finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation. We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The information provided in this Brandon’s Blog is intended for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional advice regarding their specific situations. The content of this Brandon’s Blog should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional guidance or consultation. The author, Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. as well as any contributors to this Brandon’s Blog, do not assume any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the information provided herein.

A professional-looking individual, possibly wearing a suit, holding a clipboard and standing confidently in front of a distressed property. The property could be depicted with signs of neglect or decay to emphasize its distressed state, such as boarded-up windows, overgrown plants, and peeling paint. The focus should be on the individual, exuding a sense of authority and competence in managing such situations. The setting could be urban or suburban, with a backdrop that hints at the challenges of real estate insolvency. The art style could be detailed and realistic to capture the situation's seriousness and the individual's professional demeanour.
real estate receiver
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO’S FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES ACT: EXPLORING ESSENTIAL REAL ESTATE LIMITATION PERIODS

fraudulent conveyances act
fraudulent conveyances act

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Introduction

In this Brandon’s Blog, we discuss the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29 and its elaborate implications within the substantial world of real property transactions. We will navigate the labyrinthine provisions of the Act, and enhance your understanding using a real-world example. We will also clarify the connection between the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, fraudulent conveyances and Ontario limitation periods in the realm of real estate transactions.

We will also check out the interaction between the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and limitation periods in realty transactions. Limitation periods play a considerable duty in determining when lawsuits can be brought forward, and comprehending just how they associate with fraudulent conveyances is important in navigating the intricacies of the property landscape. We will check out a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released on August 4, 2023, which clears up this whole issue.

How the Fraudulent Conveyances Act works

The Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act is a stunning piece of Ontario provincial law that stands as a guardian of creditors’ legal rights versus the treacherous schemes of debtors. With unfaltering willpower, this Act has been made to ward off any and all efforts by debtors to slither out of their financial obligations by slyly moving their properties to others.

In its noble search for justice, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act makes sure that creditors are protected from the conniving strategies of debtors who look to avert their obligations. This legislation supplies a strong structure for creditors to attack any kind of potentially uncertain transactions and obtain the return of any type of funds or properties that may have been cunningly relocated.

Within the realm of Ontario’s legal landscape, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act tackles the extensive duty of guarding the position of creditors versus the shrewd maneuvers entailing the surreptitious change of ownership of property, either personal or real, by individuals or corporations trying to move their assets away from the responsibility of their debt obligations through webs of deceit.

Operating as a linchpin of justice, this Fraudulent Conveyances Act plays a crucial duty in the upkeep of equity and also moral integrity within the realm of property dealings. It possesses the power to nullify those transactions that arise from the indelible mark of deceit, thereby fortifying the bedrock concepts of fairness and equity.

fraudulent conveyances act
fraudulent conveyances act

Definition of fraudulent conveyance

Within the province of Ontario, the concept of a fraudulent conveyance takes shape as the orchestration of a maneuver wherein one or more assets, akin to pawns on a strategic board, are relocated, driven by the very purpose of ensconcing these assets beyond the reach of creditors. This type of transfer garners the label of fraudulent, a designation reflecting a means to veil and shroud property, rendering it escaping the reach of creditors.

This legislative framework, known as the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act, unveils a list of specific benchmarks, all for the recognition of a transfer swathed in the cloak of deception and thus null and void. A transfer imbued with an intent to stall and thwart creditors’ aspirations or, alternatively, the transfer is one with a price tag significantly below fair market valuation. Upon a court determining that a transfer is a fraudulent conveyance, the property is undone, returning back to the debtor owner’s estate for the benefit of its creditors.

Who is covered by the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and what actions are prohibited under the Act?

The Fraudulent Conveyances Act applies to the affairs of both individuals and corporate entities. This legislation stands as a guardian, shielding the vested interests of creditors. Its purpose is to undo the webs of illicit property transfers aimed at moving property out of the reach of creditors.

Any transaction found by the court to violate the Act will be reversed. The heart of this Act aims to maintain integrity in transactions and remedy those designed to be deceitful.

fraudulent conveyances act
fraudulent conveyances act

Importance of understanding limitation periods in business transactions

Understanding limitation periods within the world of transactions is very important in comprehending everybody’s rights. An astute grasp of limitation periods is extremely vital for any person pondering initiating a lawsuit. This is particularly true in the world of attempting to turn around deals as being in breach of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

As you will certainly see below, this is the essence of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario entailing a real estate deal that a bank was attempting to obtain reversed as contravening the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

Time Period for fraudulent conveyance actions: Limitations Act vs Real Property Limitations Act

The problem needing a decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario when it comes to Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov, 2023 ONCA 528 (CanLII) discussed below, is, when it comes to a potentially fraudulent conveyance involving real estate, what is the limitation period?

Under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, the restriction duration, or time period to bring a fraudulent conveyance action in Ontario is 2 years from the date of the transfer or disposition of property. However, the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 (RPLA) states:

“4. No person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to some person through whom the person making or bringing it claims, or if the right did not accrue to any person through whom that person claims, then within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to the person making or bringing it.”

When it comes to real estate, if a creditor wishes to challenge a fraudulent transfer under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, do they have a two-year window from the date of the transfer to initiate legal proceedings or a ten-year window? That is the question the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered in Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov.

fraudulent conveyances act
fraudulent conveyances act

The Bank of Montreal was embroiled in a legal conflict before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The plaintiff, or respondent, is the Bank of Montreal, while the defendants, or applicants in the appeal, are Roufat Iskenderov and Elena Lazareva. At issue is the transfer of property from Mr. Iskenderov to his spouse, which the bank claimed was a fraudulent conveyance.

Initially, the motion court found in favour of the Bank of Montreal, specifying the ten-year duration applies in their litigation under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and allowing the case to proceed. Nonetheless, the applicants appealed, suggesting that a two-year period should apply.

To totally resolve the legal concern bordering which statute and limitation period applies to an action to reserve a fraudulent conveyance of real property, the appeal court assembled a five-judge panel.

In 2008, Mr. Iskenderov transferred his share of a jointly owned home to Ms. Lazareva as part of a separation agreement. In 2008, Mr. Iskenderov fraudulently defaulted on a $400,000 line of credit with the Bank of Montreal. After legal proceedings, Mr. Iskenderov filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and was discharged in 2012.

The Bank began its legal action to challenge the home transfer as fraudulent in 2013. The motion judge considered several issues, including the applicable limitation period and the discharge of a pending litigation certificate.

Here are the key points of this case:

  1. The case involves a dispute related to a transfer of real property deemed fraudulent. The issue arises about whether the appellant should be bound by a previous court decision (*Anisman v. RPLA*) regarding the applicable limitation period.
  2. The motion judge determined that the ten-year limitation period applies, and the action was filed within that time. There was no violation of the limitation period.
  3. The motion judge considered the discoverability of the claim, referencing *Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick*, stating that if the two-year limitation period applied, there was a potential issue regarding when the appellant had knowledge of liability. Summary judgment might not have been granted in this case.
  4. The motion judge decided not to discharge the certificate of pending litigation for the delay due to several reasons: a lack of evidence that the appellant had thwarted intentions to deal with the property, most of the delay caused by the appellants, the risk of prejudice to the Bank due to previous fraudulent transfer, absence of security offered to the Bank, and the Bank’s readiness for trial.
  5. The appellants raised three issues on appeal, including whether the motion judge’s reliance on *Anisman (ONCA)* for the ten-year limitation period was a legal error. They also questioned the dismissal of the action for delay, but the motion judge ruled in favour of the Bank, extending the time for trial.

    fraudulent conveyances act
    fraudulent conveyances act

In a separation agreement dated January 10, 2008, Mr. Iskenderov transferred his interest in their jointly held matrimonial home to Ms. Lazareva. On April 28, 2008, Mr. Iskenderov defaulted on a $400,000 line of credit to the Bank of Montreal, which he had obtained fraudulently.

After the Bank obtained a judgment against Mr. Iskenderov for $483,449.89 on January 14, 2009, he made an assignment into bankruptcy on March 24, 2009. He received his bankruptcy discharge in November 2012. The stay of proceedings arising from the bankruptcy was lifted by the court to enable the Bank of Montreal to proceed to pursue its judgment against him under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”), being a claim not discharged by his discharge from bankruptcy.

The Bank started its litigation to declare the transfer of the home a fraudulent conveyance and to set it aside under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act on June 18, 2013. On February 17, 2015, under s. 38 of the BIA, the Bank acquired from the Trustee the right to commence this action and on March 4, 2015, the Bank obtained an Assignment of Claim from the Trustee. The Bank also successfully obtained a certificate of pending litigation against the property in March 2015. The litigation “moved sluggishly along”, with delay by both parties.

The motion court needed to deal with numerous crucial concerns in the case, including whether a previous decision made by the Court of Appeal for Ontario would bind the current case. In that case (Anisman, Re) the appellate court had formerly ruled that the ten-year period under s. 4 of the RPLA related to an activity to declare a fraudulent conveyance of real property against creditors.

Additionally, the judge had to figure out whether the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act should be used in the Fraudulent Conveyances Act action as well as if there was an authentic issue for trial regarding when the Bank first had knowledge of the transfer. There was additionally the matter of whether the certificate of pending litigation ought to be discharged because of delay and whether the entire case itself needs to be rejected for the very same reason.

The motion court was not tasked with establishing whether the contested transfer was a fraudulent conveyance; that issue was scheduled for trial if the matter was not discharged either as statute-barred or for delay.

The motion judge found that:

  1. The ten-year limitation period in the RPLA applies and the action was commenced well within that time.
  2. If the two-year limitation period had applied, there was a triable issue regarding when the Bank had the knowledge to give it the “plausible inference” of liability. Therefore summary judgment would not have been granted but the issue would have gone for trial.
  3. He would exercise his discretion not to lift the certificate of pending litigation.
  4. The appellants were more responsible than the Bank for the litigation delay. The matter was ready to be set down for trial, and there is potential merit to the action. For those reasons, the motion judge declined to dismiss the action for delay and granted the Bank’s motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

Considerations when evaluating liability and the applicable limitation period: The Court of Appeal for Ontario analysis

During the appeal, the appellants presented three points of contention. Firstly, they challenged the motion judge’s decision to follow the Anisman (ONCA) principle, which upholds the RPLA ten-year limitation period over the Limitations Act’s two-year limitation period in an action to declare a fraudulent conveyance of real property void against creditors. Secondly, they contested the motion judge’s finding of a triable issue regarding when the Bank actually discovered that it may have a claim if the shorter Limitations Act time period applies to its action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act. Lastly, they raised concerns about the motion judge’s factual findings regarding the delays in the action, which they believed amounted to palpable and overriding errors.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario first looked at the origin of the present RPLA can be traced back to the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 (U.K.), which has been in existence virtually unchanged since 1833. It was incorporated into the Ontario statutes in 1834 through an Act to amend the Law respecting Real Property, 1834, (U.C.) 4 Will. IV, c.

The wording of the limitation period for actions to “recover any land” in England and Ontario has remained the same over the years, although the duration of the limitation period has varied. In 1910, the provisions were moved from the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, to form Part I of the Limitations Act, S.O. 1910, c. 34, where they remained until 2004. Parts II and III of the old Act were revoked, and Part I was renamed as the RPLA.

The appeal court held that before the enactment of the new Act, s. 4 of the RPLA or its equivalent provisions were never applied to an action for a fraudulent conveyance of land.

After reviewing appropriate case law, the five appellate judges unanimously agreed on all points of law, including:

  1. The Fraudulent Conveyance Act doesn’t revert property to the grantor; it removes obstacles to the creditor’s recovery and allows additional remedies.
  2. Successful creditors in a fraudulent conveyance action don’t necessarily need property return; a court declaration of conveyance as “void against” them suffices
  3. An Order under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act doesn’t change property title, but creditors can treat the transferee’s property as liable for debts.
  4. Fraudulent conveyance actions do not result in the recovery of land rights; the conveyance is voided.
  5. The Fraudulent Conveyances Act statute aims to enable creditors to execute against the land for debts owed by the transferor.
  6. The interpretation of “an action to recover any land” in the RPLA differs from its application in fraudulent conveyance cases.
  7. “To recover any land” doesn’t mean to regain lost property, but to obtain land by court judgment.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the Limitations Act, 2002 and not the RPLA applies to fraudulent conveyance actions. Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal by Roufat Iskenderov and Elena Lazareva and made the following orders:

  • The applicable limitation period for the fraudulent conveyance action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act is two years from the date of discovery of the claim by the respondent under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
  • The discoverability issue shall be tried together with the fraudulent conveyance issue and set down for trial in accordance with the order of the motion judge.
  • Costs of the appeal to the appellants in the agreed amount of $7,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

So there is now going to be a trial of the issue of whether the Bank of Montreal was on time or not in bringing its action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, now that it has been settled that the limitation period for bringing the action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act is a two-year time limit.

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this Fraudulent Conveyances Act Brandon’s Blog. It is important for everyone to understand what constitutes a fraudulent conveyance of property, either personal property or real estate, especially when the person or company transferring the property is insolvent. Problems with making ends meet are a growing concern in Canada, affecting individuals of all ages and income levels.

Creating a solid financial plan can be the key to unlocking a brighter and more prosperous future. By taking control of your finances, you can prioritize your expenses, set clear financial goals, and build a strong foundation for your dreams to come true. With the right mindset and approach, financial planning can empower you to regain control, eliminate this issue as a source of stress in your life and find peace of mind.

Individuals must take proactive measures to address financial difficulties and promptly seek assistance when necessary. It is crucial to recognize that financial stress is a prevalent concern and seeking help is a demonstration of fortitude, rather than vulnerability. Should you encounter challenges in managing your finances and find yourself burdened by stress, do not delay in pursuing aid.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing people, entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses with debt problems that are in financial distress. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are you worried about what your fiduciary obligations are and not sure if the decisions you are about to make are the correct ones to avoid personal liability? Those concerns are obviously on your mind.

The Ira Smith Team understands these financial health concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own and it does not mean that you are a bad person. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses innovative and cutting-edge methodologies, to adeptly navigate you through the intricacies of your financial challenges, ensuring a resolution to your debt-related predicaments without resorting to the rigours of the bankruptcy process. We can get you debt relief now!

We have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a Trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team understands that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

fraudulent conveyances act
fraudulent conveyances act
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE SAVVY FIRST MORTGAGEE: SOMETIMES YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

First mortgagee: What is the definition of a mortgagee?

A mortgagee is a person or company who gives a loan and uses the property as security for the debt. The mortgagee is the lender. The property owner who borrows the money is called the mortgagor.

I have acted in many real estate receivership matters. Real estate receiverships in Ontario normally involve a court-appointed receiver. The reason is usually that there are many competing parties and perhaps competing claims. The best way to resolve these disputes and for the party that purchases the real estate from the receiver is through court supervision.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario involving a real estate receivership and the claim of the first mortgagee. I and my Firm are not involved in this matter.

What is the definition of a first mortgagee?

A first mortgage is a loan that is secured by real estate property in priority to any other loans registered against the real property. In the event of default, the first mortgage loan has priority over any other loans that are secured by the property. The first mortgagee is the mortgagee that holds that first mortgage for that mortgage loan.

first mortgagee

Institutional First Mortgagee Definition

The term “institutional first mortgagee” refers to a lending institution that provides financing for a first mortgage loan. Such mortgage lenders are typically a banking institution, credit union, or company that specializes in mortgage lending.

The institutional first mortgagee typically offers the lowest interest rate and best terms for the mortgage loan, especially if they are going to hold an institutional first mortgage. However, this is not the case if the institutional lender is one that deals with harder-to-finance properties or sub-prime mortgage loans.

Is it possible to have more than one mortgage at the same time?

There are instances where multiple mortgages may be an option. However, it is no secret that mortgages can be difficult to obtain. Financial institutions are often hesitant to approve multiple mortgages for fear of the borrower’s ability to repay. It is quite possible that to get more than one mortgage a borrower may have to look at the secondary mortgage market to accomplish that second or third mortgage transaction on the same property.

Every lender is different. One lender may see an opportunity where another would deem it too risky. The terms and pricing being offered will match the lender’s risk assessment. Remember, there can only be one first mortgage. Each subsequent mortgage will be more expensive and may have more onerous terms as each subsequent mortgagee is taking on more risk than the first mortgagee lending against the same real property.

Adding another mortgage may only exacerbate your financial difficulties if you are already struggling to make payments on one. Before making a decision, it is important to carefully weigh all of your options.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

The case I am about to describe highlights the dangers of having an institutional first mortgage and then having a subsequent mortgagee holding the second mortgage when the owner’s business plan for the commercial real estate does not work out.

First National Financial v. Golden Dragon: You can’t always get what you want

The case before the Court of Appeal for Ontario is an excellent instance of not always obtaining what you want. The Rolling Stones stated it best in their 1969 tune, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”

The Court of Appeal decision that I describe below may seem fairly obvious. First National Financial GP Corporation v. Golden Dragon Ho 10 Inc., 2022 ONCA 621, stands for the proposition that in order for a first mortgagee (or any mortgagee) to make a claim for accelerated interest on the entire debt, or any other claim a mortgagee may make when a mortgage goes into default, you first must look at the mortgage terms to see what exactly they are entitled to.

The first issue to be addressed is a priority dispute between the first mortgagee, First National Financial GP Corporation (First National), the second mortgagee, Liahona Mortgage Investment Corporation (Liahona); and the mortgagors, Golden Dragon Ho 10 Inc. (GDH 10) and Golden Dragon Ho 11 Inc. (GDH 11) (collectively referred to as the mortgagor). The primary concern of this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in deciding that First National, as the first mortgagee, is entitled to payment of a future, unearned, interest to the end of the term of its closed mortgages.

Additionally, Golden Dragon appealed the receiver’s fee and costs approved by the lower court. The Court of Appeal for Ontario quickly dismissed their appeal.

First mortgagee: Should You Take Out a Second Mortgage?

When it comes to your finances, taking on more debt is generally not considered a good idea. However, there are some situations where taking out a second mortgage charge on title can make sense.

Opting for a second mortgage entails some risks. If you’re unable to keep up with all the mortgage payments, you could lose your property through the power of sale proceedings.

Golden Dragon used to own two residential apartment buildings that were next to each other in Ottawa. When they bought these properties, they assumed three closed registered mortgages: the first mortgage on one building, a first mortgage for the second building, and a second mortgage for the second building. All three mortgages were held by First National. Its second mortgage ranked pari passu with its first mortgage.

Despite being required to give notice to First National under its mortgages, Golden Dragon subsequently placed a second mortgage on the first building without giving any notice. This new subsequent mortgage was held by Liahona.

Golden Dragon took out a second mortgage to get access to funds to use to renovate the apartments. However, Golden Dragon was unsuccessful in renovating the properties and became insolvent. As of December 2016, the Liahona second mortgage was in default and no further payments were made.

Liahona issued a notice of sale for the property of Golden Dragon and obtained a default judgment, and a judgment to take possession of the property.

As of June 2017, the First National mortgage charges on title were in default. Their mortgages included cross-default provisions, meaning that a default under one was deemed to be a default under all three First National mortgages. On August 17, 2017, First National made a formal demand that Golden Dragon pays the arrears and cure the non-monetary defaults and delivered notices of intention to enforce security pursuant to s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Golden Dragon was unable to cure the borrower defaults and the court appointed the interim receiver after considering the circumstances of default.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

The interim receiver ensured the properties were stable and increased the rental income. Rather than the first mortgagee or second mortgagee selling the properties by way of a power of sale, the court then expanded the interim receiver’s role to marketing and selling the apartment buildings. The interim receiver requested the court’s approval for the sale of the properties. The court found that the approval conditions were met, the sale was approved, and the properties were sold.

 

What can the first mortgagee claim if the mortgaged properties are sold?

The trial judge’s ruling found that the First National registered mortgages did not give it the right to claim the disputed “yield maintenance penalties,” which included an acceleration of all amounts due until the end of the mortgage terms.

Although the mortgages contained a provision allowing Golden Dragon to redeem the mortgages by paying a “yield maintenance” penalty calculated according to a formula set out in the provision, this privilege only applied if Golden Dragon was not in default under the terms of the mortgages. Since Golden Dragon was in default, it no longer enjoyed the privilege of prepayment of the mortgages. As a result, First National was not entitled to charge a yield maintenance penalty.

Despite this, the trial judge decided that First National was entitled to the amounts it claimed as a condition of payout:

  • under a common law rule that a mortgagee is entitled to all accelerated interest owing to the date of maturity when a closed mortgage is vested off the title before the end of the term; or
  • in accordance with an implied contractual entitlement to interest on the unpaid balance, the trial judge read into the First National mortgages.

Liahona submitted to the trial judge that the first mortgagee was not entitled to accelerated interest under their mortgages unless there was a specific clause in the mortgage authorizing such a claim. The trial judge rejected that argument and concluded that the accelerated interest under the mortgage became due when the registered mortgages were terminated prematurely upon being vested off title pursuant to the court-supervised sale.

What the Court of Appeal for Ontario decided

Liahona and Golden Dragon appealed the trial judge’s decision in interpreting the basics of mortgagee clauses for the following issues:

  • Whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the first mortgagee claim for priority for the accelerated interest under its mortgages under common law.
  • If the trial judge erred by implying a contractual term in the First National mortgages that didn’t exist.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario differed from the lower court’s ruling concerning the mortgagee clause relating to accelerated interest. The appellate court noted that the lower court misapplied the law as well not taking into consideration the full scope of the contracts. It further stated that a loan agreement is interpreted according to standard principles of contract interpretation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario vacated the trial judge’s ruling. Even though First National objected, the appellate court decided that the first mortgagee was only entitled to the principal and interest, plus costs up to the day of the sale of the properties that the court authorized.

First mortgagee: The main point

The main point of this court case is that if you negotiate and bargain for a certain set of contractual terms set out in writing, the court will look at the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract. This includes any mortgagee clause it bargained for.

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on what this first mortgagee rights and what it was entitled to from the court-supervised sale of the properties. Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? Are you or your company insolvent due to a contract you may have entered into? Can you or your business not able to afford to make all your necessary debt payments, including mortgage payments?

The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt. You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges.

It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We know that we can help you the way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan.

We realize that people and businesses in financial difficulty need practical advice and a workable solution in an easy-to-understand financial plan. The Ira Smith Team knows that not everyone has to file for bankruptcy in Canada. Most of our clients never do, as we are familiar with alternatives to bankruptcy. We assist many people in finding the relief they need.

Call or email us. We can tailor a new debt restructuring procedure specifically for you, based on your unique economic situation and needs. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you’re serious about finding a solution, let us know.

Call us now for a no-cost initial consultation.

first mortgagee
first mortgagee

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LEGAL PROCEEDING JUDGMENT LIEN: 2 KINDS OF JUDGMENT LIENS WITH HUGELY DIFFERENT RESULTS IN BANKRUPTCY

In Canada, there are several options in what you can do when someone owes you money and you do not hold any security against any of their property. First, a person or company should obviously make one or more demands on the party that owes them the money before starting any legal proceeding.

If that proves to be unsuccessful, your next steps will probably be governed by how that creditor reacted to your demand. Did they just ignore you or did they put up either a false or somewhat valid dispute to your claim?

One possible next step is that you can retain a lawyer to make a demand to collect the money owed. If those initial efforts to collect payment prove unsuccessful, your lawyer can begin a legal proceeding against the person or company you believe owes you the money. If your legal action is successful in proving your case in court, you will receive a judgment against the party. One option is you can then take this judgment to a debt collector to try to collect on it.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I first explore several issues surrounding being a judgment debtor, having a judgment debt to collect and what happens if the judgment creditor files for bankruptcy? As the title of this Brandon’s Blog suggests, there are 2 kinds of judgment liens and in bankruptcy, the results are very different.

So I first look at what it means to get a judgment and what happens to a judgment creditor and the judgment debt if the debtor files for bankruptcy. To do this, I look at a recent decision from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta which looks at the 2 kinds of judgments in detail.

If you are having financial difficulties collecting a debt from another person or company, you may need legal assistance. If the other person (or their lawyer) refuses to pay, then you can take a legal proceeding to collect the money you are owed.

If you are owed money by someone, your lawyer will want as much information as possible before starting any legal action. The first step is to collect as many details and supporting documents as you can about the debt. Make sure you have a comprehensive overview of the debt, including the amount owed, the name of the debtor, and any relevant deadlines or timelines.

Next, collect the name, address, and phone number of the individual or company who owes the debt – the debtor. Finally, make sure that your proposed legal proceeding is going to be handled for the person or company who is actually owed the debt – the creditor. You need to be precise in who the legal proceeding is against and who it is for.

Finally, make sure that your proposed legal proceeding is going to be handled for the person or company who is actually owed the debt – the debtor. You need to be precise in who the legal proceeding is against and who it is for.

Your lawyer will take the first step of issuing a demand letter to the debtor who owes you money. The letter will most likely threaten that your lawyer will begin a legal proceeding by filing a lawsuit on your behalf if the debt is unpaid after a specific number of days or weeks. If you win, you now have the amount owing as a proven judgment debt.

legal proceeding
legal proceeding

The law in Ontario prevents anyone from beginning a legal proceeding against you for debts that you owe that are over 2 years old. This law is called the Limitations Act, and it applies to any debts that you owe, even if the creditor stops trying to collect the debt.

The Ontario Limitations Act establishes a maximum timeframe within which court proceedings relating to a “claim” may be initiated. In general, someone has 2 years from the time they either knew or ought to have known, that they had suffered a loss or damages as a result of an action or omission on your part.

In general, debt is uncollectible and you cannot be sued on it after 2 years have passed from the time the debt went into default resulting in the party’s claim against you. This result has even been extended to Canadian insolvency proceedings where a creditor files a proof of claim. If there is no judgment, and the claim is over 2 years old, that debt may very well be statute-barred in Ontario and the licensed insolvency trustee would have to disallow that claim.

A judgment is the result of a successful legal proceeding against one or more parties in order to prove the existence of a debt. Getting a judgment made by a provincial court is just the first step. Now the money must be collected. A judgment claim can then be registered against a debtor’s personal property or real property to become a judgment lien. A successful plaintiff in their legal proceeding, now a judgment creditor, would do this to secure payment of the debt. A lien is a method of ensuring payment of money owed by registering against a debtor’s property as security.

The lien arising from a legal proceeding judgment can be properly registered to attach as a security interest in either personal property or real property. Examples against personal property would be:

  • to garnishee wages;
  • obtaining funds from a bank account or non-exempt investments; or
  • amounts to be paid in the future, such as the accounts receivable of a business from various customers.

When it comes to real property, if the judgment debtor is a property owner, a registered judgment lien attaches to the real estate just like a mortgage if properly registered to secure amounts payable.

In Ontario, if you wanted to register a judgment lien against a judgment debtor’s personal property, you would do so under the Ontario Personal Property Security Registration System.

legal proceeding
legal proceeding

What are the judgement proof laws in Ontario?

Being judgment proof means that creditors cannot take your assets if you cannot pay what you owe. The first way this could be is because the only assets you have are the type that is exempt from seizure under provincial law. The Ontario Execution Act stipulates which assets are exempt from seizure.

The second way you may be judgment proof is that your non-exempt assets are fully encumbered by secured loans, such as mortgages and lines of credit, and that there is no value in your property for anyone else, including the judgment debtor. So if you’re judgement proof, your assets are safe from seizure.

If you’re judgment-proof in Ontario, then you don’t have to worry about having your assets seized. However, you will have to learn to live without a bank account, as cash in the bank is not an exempt asset. You also need to be the type of person who doesn’t worry.

You can’t be the type of person who worries about unsatisfied judgments against them or their credit rating taking a hit because of that. You have to plan never to own any non-exempt property in your name because that can be seized.

The non-judgment proof debtor can take action as soon as judgment is given

What if the judgment debtor is not judgment proof but the judgment renders them insolvent? In that case, the assets owned by the judgment debtor are insufficient to pay off the judgment and all of the other debts of the judgment debtor in full. Therefore that judgment debtor may very well need to look at an insolvency proceeding to deal with their debts. Depending on their debt load, they may have to consider either a consumer proposal or a full restructuring proposal or even bankruptcy. Each of these insolvency proceedings is conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

This is the introduction to the court decision I will now discuss from MNP Ltd v Canada Revenue Agency, 2022 ABQB 320.

At the beginning of Brandon’s Blog, I said that there are two types of judgment liens with very different outcomes in bankruptcy. The Alberta court decision released on May 3, 2020, supports this view. The Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice M. J. Lema are quite clear and well-reasoned.

The issue that the court had to decide on was “What does a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest”, acquired on registration against a debtor’s land, mean after the debtor’s bankruptcy?”. The fact that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) are respondents, hopefully, gives you a clue as to the 2 kinds of registered judgment liens against a judgment debtor.

The licensed insolvency trustee argued that the pre-bankruptcy priority arising from that interest continues after bankruptcy, that the Trustee acquires that priority position on the debtor’s bankruptcy, and that, on behalf of registered writ-holders (and, in fact, all unsecured creditors). The Trustee further argued that it can assert the binding interest and resulting priority position against a down-title secured creditor (here, CRA) and a secured-against-personal-property-only secured creditor (here, RBC).

Unfortunately, the Trustee’s position as Trustee in the bankruptcy of the judgment debtor was incorrect, according to the Honourable Mr. Justice M.J. Lema. From here on, I will refer to the judgment debtor as the bankrupt.

The key facts are that, before bankruptcy, various registered judgment liens/writs of enforcement were done against various of the bankrupt’s lands. Those writs included writs in favour of the CRA for unpaid taxes and associated amounts. The CRA writs were registered after most or all of the other writs.

The bankrupt was also indebted to the RBC, which held a general security agreement giving it a security interest in all of the debtor’s present and after-acquired personal property. After bankruptcy, via both foreclosures and trustee-initiated sales, various proceeds were harvested from the debtor’s lands.

legal proceeding
legal proceeding

How does CRA get a judgment against a tax debtor? CRA can take its assessment of the taxpayer to Federal Court without notice to the taxpayer or anyone else. Before this happens, CRA has already sent the taxpayer the notice of assessment and if it was not appealed, tried to collect the money. If the taxpayer fails to pay, then CRA’s lawyer through the Department of Justice can go to Federal Court to get the judgment. The judgment that CRA obtains is called a “memorial”.

Read together, s. 223 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) and s. 87 of the BIA clearly provide that:

  • if the Crown registers a memorial against a property in the land titles office
    under ss. 223(5) and (6), it is an ordinary judgment creditor by statute; however,
  • subsection 223(11.1) deems the memorial to be a secured claim in bankruptcy, provided that the requirements of s. 87(1) are met.

There is no ambiguity.

The Trustee acknowledged that, on bankruptcy and per the combined effect of ss. 223(11.1) of the ITA and ss. 86 and 87 BIA, CRA is deemed to be a secured creditor in the bankruptcy. However, the Trustee argued that CRA’s secured position is subordinate to any writs that were registered before the memorial was registered. The court shot down that argument so there is no need to go through the Trustee’s rationale for making it.

By virtue of the ITA, CRA not only has a secured claim but gets to leapfrog everyone else – for sure judgment lien creditors but also prior registered secured creditors registered in the land titles office against the bankrupt property owner. This assumes that the registration is done in the proper land titles office.

The CRA memorial registered against any parcels of land is the first kind of judgment lien. As you can see, Parliament intended that CRA gets a priority secured position ahead of everyone else upon the bankruptcy of the taxpayer landowner. Ahead of not just anyone with a judgment or construction lien, but also any prior registered secured creditors, normally mortgagees.

This takes care of the 1st type of a registered judgment lien in bankruptcy. CRA’s judgment lien moves into a #1 deemed secured lien position if the judgment debtor goes bankrupt.

The court’s analysis proves that the 2nd type of judgment lien, being that of an ordinary judgment creditor does not retain any special status. The judgment creditor is an unsecured creditor and the fact that they registered a judgment lien before the judgment debtor filed for bankruptcy means nothing.

The possibility of a judgment lien-enforcement sale of land or building by the judgment creditor in question or other judgment creditors is effectively eliminated once the debtor is bankrupt. The same is true for a sale of land or building or other disposition of the debtor’s assets by the debtor him-, her-, or itself, regardless of the purchase price. The Trustee is installed to realize the debtor’s non-exempt assets and make sure the creditors are paid, in priority according to the provisions of the BIA.

What is the significance of a judgment lien’s binding interest after the debtor becomes bankrupt? The answer is none.

If there is no bankruptcy, a judgment lien’s binding interest has been interpreted to mean that it:

  1. anchors the judgment creditor’s right to seek a sale of the property;
  2. protects that creditor’s position against sales or other dispositions (e.g. mortgaging or charging) of the property by the judgment debtor; and
  3. provides that the creditor will get actual notice and can share in the proceeds of any legal disposition of the property, such as a writ-based sale by another enforcement creditor, a foreclosure, or a sale by the owner.

A registered judgment lien holder’s binding interest does not make it a “secured creditor” under the BIA. This means that the holder’s interest is not equal to or equivalent to a mortgage or other security against the property for a debt that is due or accruing due. So with the bankruptcy of the judgment debtor, all registered judgment lienholders are merely ordinary unsecured creditors. They have no special rights and can only expect to receive a distribution from the bankruptcy estate once any deemed trust, secured and preferred claims are paid in full, subject to the levy of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The Trustee tried to argue that the judgment creditors who registered against the real properties of the bankrupt company somehow retained their priority position against each other based on their respective dates of registration. The court decided that this could never be the case. Rather, the BIA prescribes how their ordinary unsecured claims are treated.

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.J. Lema confirmed in his decision that this 2nd kind of judgment lien has no priority of any kind once the judgment debtor is bankrupt. Whether the bankrupt is a man, woman or corporation, the answer is still the same.

legal proceeding
legal proceeding

The judgment debtor’s bankruptcy changed the priorities landscape. The binding interests stemming from judgment lien registration against one or more parcels of land were undercut. Judgment lien creditors other than CRA were relegated to waiting and watching the Trustee gather and sell the assets, regardless of what period of time it takes.

Under that scheme, secured creditors are given priority over unsecured creditors, regardless of their position before bankruptcy. In this case, both CRA (via its deemed security interest against real property) and RBC (via its GSA against personal property) are secured creditors. According to the BIA, they must be paid in full before the unsecured creditors (both preferred and ordinary) are entitled to receive any money.

I hope this Brandon’s Blog on a successful legal proceeding leading to a judgment was helpful to you in understanding more about the 2 kinds of judgments and how they are treated very differently in bankruptcy. It does not matter if it is a personal bankruptcy or corporate bankruptcy.

If you or your company has too much debt, we understand how you feel. You’re stressed out and anxious because you can’t fix your or your company’s financial situation on your own. But don’t worry. As a government-licensed insolvency professional firm, we can help you get your personal or corporate finances back on track.

If you’re struggling with money problems, call the Ira Smith Team today. We’ll work with you to develop a personalized plan to get you back on track and stress-free, all while avoiding the bankruptcy process if at all possible.

Call us today and get back on the path to a healthy stress-free life.

legal proceeding
legal proceeding
Call a Trustee Now!